[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#729203: Packaging for FFmpeg avoiding conflicts with libav



On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:33:33PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30:25PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> > On 25.02.2014 22:18, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 06:23:20PM +0100, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> >>>> No, it means I don't have the time, nor nerve to discuss this. We're
> >>>> after all busy to keep Debian secure and sick of maintainers who only
> >>>> focus on their pet package and neglegt the overall maintainability
> >>>> of the Debian archive.
> >>>
> >>> While I always stated that I'm open to discussion, you just ended
> >>> the discussion after trying to block FFmpeg from entering Debian,
> >>> which I do not find very constructive.
> >>
> >> My feeling is that this was discussed over and over and Moritz is
> >> /slighly/ tired of repeating the same thing over and over. And me
> >> replying to this mail doesn't mean I'm willing to engage in a large
> >> thread on this, the security team position has been given.
> >
> > My impression has been /slightly/ different: Moritz made dubious claims  
> > about FFmpeg:
> > "We've looked into many security issues
> > in ffmpeg which didn't affect libav, either because experimental
> > code wasn't merged yet or because code was rewritten in libav and not
> > affected. Also ffmpeg hasn't have long term branches which is a major
> > benefit of libav."
> >
> > After I have questioned these, Moritz simply left the discussion. But  
> > maybe I didn't understand what Moritz wanted to say?
> 
> Yes, it's the latter: I didn't badmouth ffmpeg in any way: it was said that libav 
> fixed less Google fuzzer samples than libav; for which I added my observation that when
> I looked at several CVE assignments for ffmpeg fixes the affected code
> didn't exist in libav releases and that explains the difference in numbers.
> That doesn't mean that ffmpeg is worse than libav, it simply means that the
> code has diverged and different code is affected.

I belive maybe some things are a bit mixed up here
The "less fixes in libav" stuff was AFAIK a comparission between the
libav and ffmpeg git master branches

while libavs last release was based on git master of
over a year ago.

So please correct me if iam wrong, but i dont think that a
comparission of libav from over a year ago against recent issues
can serve as an explanation for differences in the 2 projects master
branches

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Awnsering whenever a program halts or runs forever is
On a turing machine, in general impossible (turings halting problem).
On any real computer, always possible as a real computer has a finite number
of states N, and will either halt in less than N cycles or never halt.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: